Skip to content

San José State Spartans

Mountain West·2-1·
Elo
1413#87
SP+
-12.8#112
FPI
-10.1
AP
NR
Nextvs Fresno State · Wk 3Win prob 8%Model +19.3
Talent #110 (569.3)Recruiting class #1294% production returning

Roster · 102 players

FR 29SO 22JR 27SR 24
#PlayerPosClHtWt
3Luke WeaverQBSR6'3"210
5Daniel RolovichQBFR6'4"210
8Robert McDanielQBFR6'2"205
14Hudson WyattQBJR6'2"200
16CJ LeeQBSO6'1"165
6Jabari BatesRBSR5'7"180
20Viliami TeuRBJR5'10"210
21Isaiah CarlsonRBJR6'2"220
22Tyler JacklichRBJR6'2"220
24Sir AutryRBFR5'10"170
26Courshawn HillRBFR5'10"210
28Aaron Cox Jr.RBFR5'11"205
0Jordan AndersonWRSO5'11"170
1Carson ClarkWRFR5'9"170
2Jerry McClureWRJR6'1"195
4Dominique McKenzieWRSO5'11"180
7Tama AmisoneWRSO5'11"185
9Jase NixWRFR5'9"170
10Anthony IveyWRSR5'11"190
11Malachi RileyWRJR6'1"170
13Cooper HochWRJR6'3"200
17Ryker RuelasWRFR6'3"195
18Trace HernandezWRSO5'10"160
19Cody HallWRSR5'11"180
23Devin OlmandeWRFR6'2"190
33Parris Vernon Jr.WRFR5'10"160
80Jeremiah FungWRFR6'3"210
82Braiden Bachich-DixonTEFR6'4"210
83Kamaehu Kopa-KaawalauoleTEJR6'4"225
84Max FriedmanTEFR6'5"225
85Shane KileyTEFR6'4"215
88Ryan BoultwoodTEJR6'3"230
54Daniel MoleniOLSR6'2"290
55Greg ShadeOLSO6'3"290
56Simeon AfalavaOLSR6'3"285
62Tyler ChenOLJR6'2"280
63Brian TapuOLFR6'5"315
64Nathan BalestrieriOLJR6'1"300
65Johnny NotarianniOLFR6'3"280
66Kamuela WilhelmOLFR6'6"290
67Keenan ParksOLFR6'4"230
68Mitchell BrownOLSO6'3"270
70Ikiansio TupouOLSO6'6"280
72Lavaka TaukeiahoOLSR6'2"320
74Mitchell JonesOLSO6'3"280
75Joseph HarbertOLSR6'3"290
76Manuel SernaOLSO6'5"295
77Daniel TuliauOLFR6'3"305
78David PerezOLSO6'2"290
41Bronx LetuligasenoaDLFR6'3"260
42Ian ShewellDLSR6'3"280
45Jeremiah TuiileilaDLFR6'3"255
48Dejon RoneyDLSR6'1"295
50Star TaimaniDLSO6'3"270
51Solomone LangiDLSR6'0"295
57Justin StearnsDLSR6'2"250
89Etu FinauDLSR6'4"245
90Jayland McGlothenDLJR6'2"280
91Auma JenningsDLFR6'0"310
92Noa SiaosiDLJR6'2"270
94Russell DevanyDLFR6'0"235
95Colton ThomasDLFR6'1"270
99Nate LewisDLSR6'5"260
3Naseri DanielsonLBJR6'0"220
4Dylan LeeLBJR6'1"220
6Ethan PowellLBSR6'2"230
7Aizik MahukaLBJR6'3"225
11Champ KapanuiLBFR6'1"215
15Skylar TiatiaLBFR6'1"230
16Luke RicheyLBSO6'3"225
19Cayden WoolwineLBSO6'1"210
24Malakai HoeftLBSR6'2"220
25Zane CarterLBJR6'4"220
26Viliami LotoaniuLBFR6'2"230
40Blake TabaracciLBSO6'1"215
53Brady Van BennekumLBJR6'2"215
56Sirr BibleLBFR6'2"240
97John NorwoodLBSR6'3"220
0Isaiah BuxtonCBSO6'0"170
5Kejuan Bullard Jr.CBSR6'1"200
8Runye NortonCBSR5'10"170
10Greco CarrilloCBSO5'9"170
12Francois Jones Jr.CBJR6'0"190
14Jayden RobertsonCBJR5'11"170
22Jonathan WattsCBSO6'3"185
28Cole GholarCBFR5'10"185
32Caleb WomackCBSR5'10"180
1Brian Dukes Jr.SSR6'3"215
2Maliki CrawfordSJR6'4"190
13Pierce WalkerSSO5'10"190
21Charles Cox IIISSR6'0"190
23Nassir PittersSJR6'1"205
27Jackson BartonSSO5'11"175
31Hunter NowellSJR6'1"200
39Tuli Tagovailoa-AmosaSSO5'10"200
29Joey FernandezPKJR5'11"170
36Trajan SinatraPKJR5'11"190
99Mathias BrownPKJR6'0"170
49Trent CarrizosaPSR6'4"235
30Jaelen NicholsLSJR5'11"200
44Dylan AguileraLSSR5'10"210
46Sam CowartLSSO6'1"225

Team Statistics · per game, with national FBS rank

Points / game
27.7
scoring offense
Points allowed
27.7
scoring defense
Differential
0.0
per game
Offense
Total yards / game
427.3#55
Yards / play
6.1#68
Passing yards / game
262.7#49
Rushing yards / game
164.7#74
First downs / game
21.7#59
3rd down %
33.3%#104
4th down %
50.0%#70
Time of possession
27:53#108
Defense
Yards allowed / game
375.3#100
Yards / play allowed
5.3#78
Pass yards allowed / game
254.7#117
Rush yards allowed / game
120.7#74
3rd down % allowed
44.2%#110
Sacks
6#20
Tackles for loss
13#47
Turnovers & Discipline
Turnover margin
+1#41
Takeaways
4#22
Giveaways
3#74
Penalties / game
6.3#60
Penalty yards / game
56.7#77

Rank is national among all FBS teams (#1 = best), oriented so higher rank = better even for defensive and discipline metrics. Bars show percentile.

Scouting Report · 3 games in

heavily run-leaning

San José State runs it: Ken Niumatalolo's offenses have been heavily run-leaning across 10 seasons. The strengths are defensive, led by 4th at keeping everything in front of them. The way in is 137th at stuffing runs at the line, and they are 134th at generating havoc.

On fourth down he goes for it more often than his peers do from the same spots (+3.4%). Against what the expected-points model recommends he is −17.7% — the profession as a whole is negative on this.

San José State has played 3 games against an average slate, adjusted for here. That football carries about 32% of what is below; the rest is still the preseason projection.

Strengths

  • Defensehitting chunk plays
    0.99
    #4 of 138

Soft spots

  • Defensegetting stopped at the line
    12.7%
    #137 of 138
  • Defensesacks and tackles for loss
    13.3%
    #134 of 138
  • Defensemoving the ball on the ground
    53%
    #133 of 138

Each bar is where this team sits in the country. Before the season has produced enough football these are PROJECTIONS — last season regressed to the mean, plus talent, returning production, recruiting and whether the staff is the same one — and the season replaces them as it is played. Head coaches only — there is no free feed for coordinators, so on a program where the head coach does not call the offense this describes the staff he hired. Play-calling identity is a style, not a grade: throwing more than the situations warrant is not better than throwing less than they warrant.

2026 Season Projection

model win prob · 10 to play
3.59.5
projected final record (now 21)
Exp. wins left
1.5
of 10 games
Bowl odds
3%
reach 6 wins
Best odds
49%
vs Northern Illinois
Toughest
1%
vs Hawai'i

How the season could finish · 2026 · chance of each final win total · 10 games left

Every remaining game simulated from the model's win probability for it. Tallest bar is the single likeliest finish, not a prediction that it happens.

23456789101112
final winstallest bar = 38% chance
Likeliest finish 3-10 (38%)Bowl eligible 3% · marked on the axis at 6

Player Value

EPA contribution by position group + estimated NIL market value (derived from position rates and on-field production — not actual deal figures).

Unit Value — Total EPA
QBLuke Weaver
+43.4 EPA
WRAnthony Ivey, Jerry Mcclure +6
+39.8 EPA
TEKamaehu Kopa-Kaawalauole
+1.2 EPA
RBJabari Bates, Isaiah Carlson +1
+0.5 EPA

Total EPA produced by each positional group this season. OL value is captured via the rush/pass efficiency of skill players; OL-specific EPA isn't separately reported.

Estimated NIL Market Value
ESTIMATED
QBLuke Weaver
~$1.1M
EPA +43.40.365/play119 snaps
WRCarson Clark
~$333K
EPA +11.50.441/play26 snaps
RBJabari Bates
~$176K
EPA +5.80.093/play62 snaps

Estimated from position-group market rates and on-field EPA contribution. Actual NIL valuations depend on social media following, brand fit, and market negotiations — these figures are directional only.

The Five Factors

ranked vs. FBS · bar = better
Efficiency (PPA)
Off0.1841st#82
Def0.1442nd#80
Explosiveness
Off1.2647th#74
Def0.9993rd#11
Field position
Off69.650th#70
Def71.558th#58
Finishing (pts/opp)
Off3.5232nd#94
Def3.6733rd#93
Turnovers
Won 4Lost 3
Margin +1

Opponent-adjusted efficiency

EPA/play vs. schedule
Offense
Defense
Off · pass
0.4265th#49
Off · rush
0.0120th#111

Pass vs. rush (PPA)

Rushing
Off0.0119th#112
Def0.1525th#104
Passing
Off0.4265th#49
Def0.2149th#71

Trenches & disruption

Line yards (off)
3.17#58
2nd-level / open-field
1.36 / 0.62
Power / stuff (off)
71.4% / 20.4%
Havoc — total (def)
13.3%#116
Havoc — front 7 / DB
6.0% / 7.3%

Standard vs. passing downs

Pro
Std downs
Off0.17
Def0.11
Pass downs
Off0.21
Def0.19

PPA on each down type (off vs. def).

Opponent-adjusted by down

Pro
1st2nd3rd
Offense0.04#880.22#690.51#71
Defense-0.03#760.09#620.47#88

Elo Trajectory

@USCFinal
Elo rating 14111407-4 over season

Team Fingerprint · 2026 · 46 opponent-adjusted metrics · percentile vs 138 FBS teams

Plot these →
worst in FBSbest

Efficiency

  • Offense EPA/play0.2146th
  • Defense EPA/play allowed0.1431st
  • Offense success rate42%38th
  • Defense success rate allowed47%8th

Downs

  • Offense success — standard downs48%45th
  • Offense success — passing downs29%30th
  • Defense success allowed — standard downs54%4th
  • Defense success allowed — passing downs28%48th

Explosiveness

  • Offense explosiveness1.358th
  • Defense explosiveness allowed1.085th
  • Offense explosiveness — standard downs1.170th
  • Offense explosiveness — passing downs1.726th

Trenches

  • Offense line yards3.161st
  • Defense line yards allowed3.122nd
  • Offense highlight yards0.7331st
  • Defense highlight yards allowed0.7547th
  • Offense power success0.5620th
  • Defense power success allowed0.9012th
  • Offense stuff rate0.2029th
  • Defense stuff rate0.139th

Third down

  • Third down conversion34%22nd
  • Third down distance faced7.915th
  • Third down conversion allowed43%27th
  • Third down distance forced6.520th

Halves

  • Net success rate — first half-0.119th
  • Net success rate — second half-0.0228th

Drives

  • Points per drive2.457th
  • Points per drive allowed2.444th
  • Average starting field position2952nd
  • Opponent starting field position2857th
  • Available yards gained44%35th
  • Available yards allowed49%54th
  • Scoring opportunities per drive83%58th
  • Scoring opportunities allowed83%43rd
  • Points per scoring opportunity2.956th
  • Points allowed per opportunity2.948th
  • Three-and-out rate30%38th
  • Three-and-outs forced30%68th

CORE

  • CORE offense1.464th
  • CORE defense-5.985th
  • CORE overall7.379th

Roster

  • Returning usage14%13th
  • Returning EPA11.25th
  • Team talent composite56920th
  • Recruiting class rank1297th
  • Recruiting class points1597th

Every metric is opponent-adjusted and ranked so that higher is always better — a defensive rate that is good when low is ranked accordingly. Sack and tackle-for-loss composition are deliberately absent: their relationship to team quality is a measured null, so they carry a style rather than a rank, and they appear in the pressure signature instead.

Intelligence Report

Offensive DNA

EPA/play
+0.184#82 · average
Pass EPA/play
+0.418#49
Rush EPA/play
+0.010#112
Explosiveness
1.259#74
Pts/opportunity
3.52#94
Success rate
40.3%

Pass efficiency edge: 0.408 EPA/play

🛡

Defensive Identity

EPA/play allowed
+0.135#80 · average
Havoc rate (total)
13.3%#116
Front-7 havoc
6.0%
DB havoc
7.3%
Big play rate allowed
0.995#11
Success rate allowed
46.5%

Disruption comes primarily from the secondary.

📊

Season Signature

27.7 PPG offense, 27.7 allowed — +0.0 margin/game
Points per game
27.7
Points allowed/game
27.7
Scoring margin/game
+0.0
Turnover margin
+1won 4 · lost 3
Production returning
4%
Talent rank (247)
#110

2-1 record through 3 games.

Team Shape · percentile vs. FBS · dashed = 50th

OFFENSE41thEXPLOSIVENESS47thFINISHING32thFIELD POS50thDEFENSE42thHAVOC16th50th100th
Offense
41th
Explosiveness
47th
Finishing
32th
Field Pos
50th
Defense
42th
Havoc
16th

Each axis = national percentile rank. 100th = best in FBS, 0th = worst. Defense and Havoc are oriented so higher = better.

The season, week by week · 2026

A season-long average is taken over a period during which the team changed. This is the same numbers as a trajectory, so a mid-season turn is visible instead of averaged away.

Offense EPA/play 0.077 in the second half
0.120.200.27112

Line is the season-to-date average — the number the rest of this page reports. Bars are the individual weeks that moved it.

Defense EPA allowed 0.387 in the second half
-0.030.190.40112

Line is the season-to-date average — the number the rest of this page reports. Bars are the individual weeks that moved it.

Offense success rate 0.035 in the second half
0.330.410.49112

Line is the season-to-date average — the number the rest of this page reports. Bars are the individual weeks that moved it.

Defense success allowed 0.298 in the second half
0.290.480.67112

Line is the season-to-date average — the number the rest of this page reports. Bars are the individual weeks that moved it.

CORE efficiency · situation and opponent removed

Points per 100 plays above average, after the game state is regressed out of every snap and the schedule is solved out across the whole league. The version of this team’s efficiency that can be compared to a team it never played.

Overall
+0.8
#67
Offense
-3.7
#93
Defense
-4.5
#51
Full CORE ratings →

What a possession is worth · 23 drives

MeasureOffenseDefense
Points per drive2.392.44
Starting field positionown 29.0own 27.5
Available yards44.1%49.0%
Scoring opportunities82.6%82.6%
Points per opportunity2.902.95
Three-and-out rate30.4%30.4%
Every team’s drive efficiency →

Play-calling identity

Against what the league calls from the same down, distance, field position, score and clock — so this is the staff, not the game script.

Pass rate
53.0%
Expected, given the spots
51.3%
Over expected
+1.7
Fourth down vs peers
-4
Fourth down vs the model
-25
All play-calling tendencies →

National Landscape · 2026 FBS · offense vs. defense EPA/play

Each dot = one FBS team. San José State is highlighted. Tap or hover a dot for details.

ELITEDEF. FORTRESSOFF. POWERHOUSEREBUILDING-0.100.00+0.10+0.20+0.30-0.050.00+0.10+0.20Offensive EPA/play← worsebetter →Defensive EPA allowed/play← worsebetter →

Similar Programs

Teams with the closest offense + defense efficiency profile to San José State in 2026

by EPA/play distance
TulaneSP+ -7.4
Off EPA/play +0.200Def EPA/play +0.138Elo 1529
Match
99%
New Mexico StateSP+ -15.0
Off EPA/play +0.177Def EPA/play +0.159Elo 1259
Match
99%
TempleSP+ -4.9
Off EPA/play +0.194Def EPA/play +0.112Elo 1312
Match
99%
ArizonaSP+ +12.6
Off EPA/play +0.185Def EPA/play +0.169Elo 1625
Match
98%
UABSP+ -16.0
Off EPA/play +0.162Def EPA/play +0.164Elo 1411
Match
98%
Texas TechSP+ +18.9
Off EPA/play +0.221Def EPA/play +0.125Elo 1870
Match
98%

Similarity = normalized Euclidean distance on season offensive and defensive EPA/play. Teams within ±0.02 EPA/play on both units score >90%.

Program Trajectory · CORE rating · 20152026 · points per game vs an average FBS team

2015: -4.2, #81 of 1282016: -18.1, #113 of 1282017: -29.8, #128 of 1302018: -18.6, #115 of 1302019: -9.1, #97 of 1302020: +8.0, #36 of 1242021: -5.8, #90 of 1302022: -4.4, #80 of 1312023: +2.5, #53 of 1332024: +3.1, #55 of 1342025: -4.3, #78 of 1362026: +0.8, #67 of 138
20152026
Now +0.8 · #67 of 138Best +8.0 in 2020Worst -29.8 in 2017

Program History

recent seasons
YearOverallConfWin %xWLuck
20262-10-0
67%
2.0+0.0
20253-92-6
25%
4.7-1.7
20247-63-4
54%
6.3+0.7
20237-66-2
54%
7.1-0.1
20227-55-3
58%
5.5+1.5
20215-73-5
42%
5.3-0.3
20207-17-0
88%
5.4+1.6
20195-72-6
42%
5.3-0.3
20181-111-7
8%
1.7-0.7
20172-111-7
15%
2.0-0.0

xW = expected wins from per-game dominance. Luck = actual − expected (positive = won close games).

0.3%of 50,000 simulated 2026 seasons end with them in the field

1-1 so far, projected to finish 6.9-6.2. Wins the Mountain West in 5.2%.

If they finish with…

59%
1 loss
7.4%
2 losses
0.1%
3 losses
0%
4 losses

Their chance of making it at each final loss count. Better than even up to 1.

Win out and it is 59%. One bid goes to the best champion outside the four power leagues, so running the table only enters them into that argument.

up 0.2 points since preseasonlost 26-42 to USC against an expected margin of 36, so +27.8 against the number.

  • At 1 loss they are 59% where the average Mountain West team is 55%.
  • The Mountain West takes 0.18 bids in an average season.
  • One bid goes to the best champion outside the P4. They take it in 0.3% of seasons, having won their league in 97% of those.

San José State’s own turning points

Points of playoff probability between winning and losing.

  • wk9vs New Mexico1.2
  • wk8at Nevada0.9
  • wk5at Hawai'i0.8
  • wk3vs Fresno State0.7
  • wk12vs UNLV0.7
  • wk11at Air Force0.7

Who to root for

Games San José State is not in that move its odds most. Same units, much smaller scale.

  • wk10West Virginia over Texas Tech0.2
  • wk12Iowa over Illinois0.2
  • wk10Colorado State over Boise State0.2
  • wk3Rutgers over USC0.2
  • wk13Utah over West Virginia0.2
  • wk4Ohio State over Illinois0.2
The full playoff picture →

Mountain West

0-0 in league play, projected 4.5-4.54 of 10 by title odds
5.2%
Wins the Mountain West
16%
Reaches the title game

The Mountain West sends its top two by conference winning percentage, head-to-head breaking a tie. The last berth is level on percentage in 32% of simulated seasons, so a tiebreaker decides it about that often.

  • wk9New Mexico at San José State13.0
  • wk8San José State at Nevada9.6
  • wk12UNLV at San José State8.9
  • wk5San José State at Hawai'i8.4

Points of title probability riding on each result. The whole Mountain West race →

If not the playoff, then

75%
Bowl eligible
65%
Placed in a bowl
0.3%
In the playoff
35%
Season over in November

San José State is 2-1 and needs 4 more wins from 10 games to reach the six that make a team eligible — at most one of which may come against an FCS opponent. In 9.9% of seasons they get there and still go nowhere: there are more eligible teams than seats.

  • Famous Idaho Potato Bowl14%
  • Hawai'i Bowl13%
  • Arizona Bowl13%
  • New Mexico Bowl10%
  • LA Bowl7.8%
  • Cure Bowl2.7%

Every bowl, and how each one picks →

Recruiting Pipelines

since 2010

Of the 170 high-school programs with a pipeline page here, 9 have sent San José State a player since 2010 — 38 signees between them. Where they signed, not where they were offered, and not a complete list of San José State's feeder schools: only these 170 have the outcome history to measure.

High schoolSignedDrafted
Junipero SerraCA80
De La SalleCA60
Long Beach PolyCA50
St. John BoscoCA50
FolsomCA40
JesuitCA40
HeritageCA20
Palo AltoCA20
All 170 high-school pipelines →
✓/✗ = whether our pregame model picked the winner. Win % & projections from the Gridpex model. Data: CollegeFootballData.